This past week has been big for the web browser world. We saw Microsoft finally release Internet Explorer 8, and Google release their 2nd version of the Chrome Browser. The tech world has essentially rolled their eyes at IE8 since they have already given up on Internet Explorer for several years now in favor of alternatives, primarily Mozilla's Firefox browser. But Google's Chrome browser has started to raise eyebrows since its release in September 2008.
First let's start with Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer still has the biggest share in the market, primarily because it comes standard with Microsoft Windows. A lot of people don't make the switch because they really don't know the advantages that come with some of the alternatives like Firefox, Chrome, or any of the others. They just stick with Internet Explorer because it's already there. Internet Explorer holds about 60-70% of the browser market share split between versions 6 (20-25%) and 7 (40-45%). And now version 8 is hitting the interwebs and so far for the first week, there's not much that has changed, but why expect a giant flood of adopters? IE7 started off slowly and since IE8 is not yet even into Microsoft/Windows Update, I fail to see why this is even being analyzed so soon. IE8 was just released, and while I don't want to just flat out bash Microsoft, it's no doubt got some bugs in it. People can guess this and will hold off upgrading. I myself will be holding off as well. And already some early adopters are starting to downgrade to IE7. Again, it's too early to really say anything too harshly about it. And because of this, I don't believe you can really look too hard into IE8's impact. If you really want to see what IE8's impact is, check again in a couple months or when IE8 jumps into the list for Windows Updates.
Web developers have hated IE for quite some time and IE8 is apparently no different. I blogged about this a while back after the first IE8 beta was released and how my site's alignment got screwed up. It was on my old design so I really don't know yet how my new design stacks up. There are certain standards that are accepted for HTML, CSS, and Javascript. Internet Explorer pretty much just laughs at them as Microsoft uses their own standards which have a nasty habit of changing with every version. Essentially what you have now is 4 standards. The W3C Standard (The real standard that Firefox, Safari, etc follow), the IE6 standard, the IE7 standard, and now the IE8 standard. I mean come on, it'd be one thing if you have a standard that differs from the official one, but now devs have to make sure it works on 3 different browsers. Either way, I digress, it'd just be sooooo much nicer if Microsoft just adopted the W3C standards and stuck with them.
Google Chrome is where things get interesting. I downloaded the 2.0 beta and this browser is FAST. Javascript heavy sites like Google Docs, Reader, GMail and sites in general are amazingly fast. So fast it almost makes Firefox look bad, and by far makes IE look like a turtle in comparison. I mean in today's world with Broadband adoption picking up a lot more than say 10 years ago, speed in web browsers probably isn't a huge deal so long as they're not super slow, but I have been impressed so far by Chrome 2.0, so much in fact that I've switched over to it on Windows. The one thing that I like about Firefox is its extensibility. Through extensions and addons, you can add to Firefox's feature set. Well apparently Chrome 2.0 has the foundations for extensions as well. You put that into Chrome and I'd definitely be curious to see what happens.
The browser war isn't going anywhere anytime soon, different people have different wants when it comes to browsers, but it's nice to see some healthy competition. It wasn't that long ago when all you really had was Internet Explorer. And now, we see IE's marketshare starting to fade. Competition brings about improvements with each company trying to get the leg up over the other. Stay tuned too because Firefox 3.5 is still under development for release sometime later this year.
Microsoft just announced that there will be 6 different versions of Windows 7. Read that again...SIX versions. Why pray tell do you need to release 6 versions of one operating system? Does anyone remember Windows XP? There were 3 versions. Professional which included better network administration tools for businesses; Home for most home users, and later down the line Media Center which was Windows XP Pro with you guessed it, media center capability. Then came Vista with 4 versions (at least 4 anyway). Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate, and I can safely say I'm honestly not quite sure what all the differences are between them, only that Ultimate was the best. (as if the name didn't sort of give that away) And Now Microsoft is going even higher with 6.
Let's ignore for the moment how silly releasing 6 different versions of essentially the same piece of software sounds. To a not-so-technical user, giving them 6 different versions of Windows 7 to choose from is going to confuse them to no end. They're going to go to the store and see 6 different versions and probably have no clue as to which version is the one they need or want. And in all honesty there will probably be 2 versions of each version as well (1 for the upgrade license and another for the stand alone install). And if they go to a place like Walmart or Best Buy to purchase it, heaven help them because I've listened to some conversations between customers and the employees and was amazed how off a lot of the employees were on a lot of the technical answers they were giving. So now, not only are the customers going to be confused as to which version to get, but they may also very well get some bad answers to questions they ask in their attempt to get the correct version.
In all seriousness though, Microsoft really should go back to 1 or 2 versions. One version would be great because it would be simple, and many people including myself like simple. But even two versions wouldn't be too bad. A version geared towards the business environment, something Microsoft really needs to win back, and a version for the normal home user. Simplicity helps, the last thing you want to do is to make it more complicated for the consumer.
This commercial pretty much says it all.
Microsoft earlier in the month released the public beta of their upcoming Windows 7 operating system. And while I have not yet had the chance to take the plunge, what I've been hearing about it seems to show a huge improvement over the ill-fated Vista.
Microsoft seems to have acknowledged that Microsoft Windows Vista was a failure and a flop. Between the bloat and the Vista-Capable debacle many people steered clear of the OS, including which was probably the biggest blow, companies and businesses. Microsoft depends a lot on businesses purchasing licenses and using their operating system so when the majority of corporate IT departments opted to stick with Windows XP, the nail was hammered in just a little deeper. It got so bad that a lot of the computer companies were offering XP downgrades (upgrades) on new systems (normally for a price). Needless to say, this has since given Microsoft a black eye as what was supposed to be "a huge improvement" over XP, was actually being passed up for XP. It has also probably had a hand in the growth of Apple's OS X and the Linux operating system.
So because of all that, Microsoft pretty much has to dig themselves out of the grave they dug for themselves and so far it seems like Windows 7 is starting to do just that. From the seemingly better performance and the new UI, Microsoft appears to have at least somewhat sturdy footing to begin the rise back up. The question remains though as to how much the new Windows 7 can help and how long this seemingly good press will last. Windows 7 remains in beta so some bugs found in the OS can be attributed to its beta status, but if future fixes or future bugs cause more issues with the OS, then this good press can quickly do a 180 and lead Microsoft right back to where they started. With all that said, more people are also going to have to be convinced that the new Windows 7 is not just a "new Vista". That's the thing with reputations, once you have a reputation, its hard to change it. And in Microsoft's case, right now its a bad reputation.
A little bit of buzz has arisen after Apple has quietly suggested and recommended to Mac users that they should consider installing anti-virus software on their Macs. This has created somewhat of a stir since Apple has said several times that Macs are far less susceptible to viruses if they even get them at all. Personally I know that viruses can be written for any platform, Windows, Mac, and Linux alike. Windows just is the primary target since Windows holds the greatest market share...by a lot. Now imagine if the tables were turned and OS X held 90+% of the OS market, I'd bet that instead of Windows getting the majority of the threats, OS X would likely take the brunt of the attacks. Simply put, the evil-doers will go after whatever they can get the most out of.
I'm one of the people who has a Mac but doesn't have anti-virus software for it, which is probably not exactly the smartest move, but for the moment, I haven't needed it (or I've just gotten lucky). OS X doesn't have a lot of viruses in the wild that can affect the OS, but this however may very well come to an end soon enough with how popular the Mac line has gotten, and how OS X is rising which might make it a much more appealing target for virus writers. It might also be worth noting that Apple's switch to Intel CPUs a little while back probably makes it a little bit easier for the writers as well since they're so used to that for Windows machines.
In the end, I do understand where Apple is coming from, despite what they want to say, they have to acknowledge that OS X is not immune to viruses, no OS is (not even Linux). So putting anti-virus software on a Mac is by no means a bad idea, we'll just have to see how Mac users react. Will they snub their noses to the thought or will they think about it and agree that its probably a better idea to be safe, rather than sorry later should their Mac get infected.
One last thing for everyone to consider: Apple has been consistently growing, sales are up and more and more people are bringing Macs into their homes. With this growing popularity, comes a greater target. The number of threats are only going to go up, stay vigilant and be careful what you download, what you install, and what sites you visit. OS X may be a "small" target today, but given the growth, I don't know how long it will stay out of the virus spotlight.